We see this in California. The public employees unions are highly politically active and of course support candidates who will do their bidding.

It's like if private sector unions got to choose the board and executives at their company. While that would doubtless be good for union employees (or at least leaders), it would be quite deleterious to the interests of shareholders.

I agree that public sector unions becoming politically active is problematic, but it's problematic is same way that wealthy individuals throwing money into politics is. Wouldn't this better handled through campaign finance law rather than an outright crippling of public sector unions? Teachers shouldn't be allowed to buy politicians, but they I do think they should allowed organize and petition to better their working conditions. If you deprive labor of a voice then only money speaks.

It's observably true that public policy in the USA is for sale to the highest bidder[1]. A corollary is that campaign finance law is absolutely ineffective, because if it were then the current state of affairs would not hold. Furthermore the system is robust to political interference, since it absolutely controls the political process.

Public employee union dues are especially odious since the government is effectively collecting a payroll tax to bribe itself by way of a colluding intermediary. This is morally even worse than politicians being bribed by some private sector party.

Fun aside: given the empirical proof that only money speaks already given, the statement "If you deprive labor of a voice then only money speaks" is always true, regardless of whether or not labor has a voice.

[1]https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...

I think this gets to public sector unions saying (or implying) "we won't vote for you unless you approve a certain amount of $ for X". The politicians then approve the $ as they'll be gone when the money runs out.